Wednesday, June 03, 2015

Because Allah swt told them?

Malaysiakini - 'We fight Umno as Allah told us to fight Umno'

Perak PAS Youth representative Mohd Syakirin Hussein told his party delegates to PAS Muktamar:

Allah's punishment for misusing HIS name?

"Islam doesn't teach us to fight because of Umno, but to fight for Allah. [...] we would not fight Umno if Allah did not tell us to."

"We fight Umno
because Allah told us to fight Umno."

The priesthood caste seems to be always in contact with the Almighty even though Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was definitely the last prophet in Islam. And Allah swt would only speak to prophets. Are they claiming they are prophets too?

These modern day priests for some mysterious reasons (only known to those priests, wakakaka) would have Allah swt whisper to them who HE condemns or/and wants defeated.

Take a much earlier example, some 3000 over years ago, just prior to the Israelite battle with the Philistines at Gilgal, Samuel the priest condemned King Saul resoundingly.

What happened was Samuel had earlier instructed King Saul and his army to wait at least 7 days for his (Samuel's) arrival to perform the pre-battle sacrifice (olah or burnt offerings) to YHWH.

On the 7th day of waiting Samuel did not turn up. But across the battlefield the Israelite army saw 30,000 Philistine chariots and 6000 of the enemy's horsemen about to attack them. It was inconceivable that the Israelites would dare to enter into battle without the olah ceremony to their god.

They were frantic, in fact highly demoralized as they waited and waited and waited for Samuel to turn up as promised to conduct the burnt offerings, but they saw him not.

KJV 1 Samuel 13:6-8 tells us:

When the men of Israel saw that they were in a strait, (for the people were distressed,) then the people did hide themselves in caves, and in thickets, and in rocks, and in high places, and in pits.

And some of the Hebrews went over Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead. As for Saul, he was yet in Gilgal, and all the people followed him trembling.

And he tarried seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed: but Samuel came not to Gilgal; and the people were scattered from him.

On seeing his army highly demoralized and about to cabut away on their own, King Saul made a damn good last-minute field decision and conducted the burnt offerings himself so as to motivate and ready his army for battle.

It was undeniably a damn good decision expected of a highly commendable military king who had initiative, could think on his feet and more importantly, was courageous enough to extemporize to save his army from a dire demoralized situation.

But the moment he made the burnt offerings, guess what? Wakakaka.

Samuel leapt out from behind a bush and yelled at King Saul: "Aha, caught you, you blasphemous bastard, you did not wait for me as I had instructed."

More formally in the bible, as per 1 Samuel 13:13-14 (KJV), this was what that sneaky priest said to a startled king:

And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.

But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee.

Sadly, many Christians fail to see that Samuel was an "interested" party who had a grudge against Saul because he lost his rule over the Israelites to the first democratically chosen king of the 12 tribes, namely Saul from the Tribe of Benjamin.

Samuel was definitely out to get King Saul one way or another. The above showed how Samuel was prepared to trap Saul during a most critical military situation even at the expense of demoralizing the Israelite army immediately prior to battle.

Using that sneak ambush of his king, Samuel claimed god had removed the Israelite equivalent of the 'mandate of heaven' from King Saul. Samuel's conflict of interests in his grudge against Saul reeked of nefarious ill intent and bad faith.

Prior to King Saul being chosen by the Israelites to be their first ever king, the tribes were under the control of the Judges (priests). Samuel was a Judge and had wanted to pass his command baton to his sons. But the Israelites were pissed off with his two boys because they were utterly corrupt.

KJV 1 Samuel 8:1-9 state:

When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders. The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.

So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”

But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord.

[yeah, right, wakakaka]

And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

... and so on so forth.

It's little wonder Samuel, who was waiting for an opportunity to stab Saul right in the back. would naturally claim god said all that ... and there were more but you have to read the bible yourself, wakakaka.

That's what you get from those priesthood caste who would/will tell you god told them to do this and that, but coincidentally all in their own favour.

Allah's punishment for misusing HIS name?

Today PAS told its members "We fight Umno because Allah told us to fight Umno" but tomorrow I fear who else they will claim Allah swt tells them to fight.

I don't mind them as priests but they're just too f* dangerous as politicians.


  1. aiya, dun always read our pas fellow statement in literal sense la, i think he perceive umno as evil, foul, immoral, penyamun, perombak n that is y he told everyone to combat evil, foul, immoral, penyamun, perombak. ko ni memang black or white when come to pkr n pas.

  2. Prophet Samuel is a good man. He was right not to allow Saul to perform the olah.

    As you mentioned KT... And the Lord told him (Prophet Samuel): “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king".

    So, Saul and his followers had rejected God indeed. In the end Saul killed himself. End of story.

  3. wrong, bro hasan once AGAIN you're defending the "establishment". If by your illogical "logic" that Saul had rejected his god why did he then even perform the olah? You are relying only on Samuel's words (in actuality written by Davidic supporters, another group of enemies to Saul)

    Samuel claimed god talked to him which I doubt very much. Samuel was an "interested party" and thus not qualified as impartial in judging Saul (like our case of the former Lord President of the Judiciary being judged by the CJ) or claiming to speak "on behalf of god" (wakakaka) against Saul, because his rule was removed and replaced by Saul's kingship, not at Saul's doing but by the people's will.

    Thus Samuel was vindictive, jealous of and resented Saul being chosen to be king of Israel, that's the underlining reason for Samuel's treachery.

    Incidentally Saul did NOT kill himself. He was killed by David just as his son Jonathan (David's lover) was also treacherously killed by David. Saul was said to die on the battlefield but strangely almost immediately David was already wearing Saul's crown

    1. Samuel is a prophet. Saul is not a prophet. You are so protective of Saul. David is a prophet too. I am sure you would agree that all prophets have a direct line with God. I lost you... why you hate Samuel and David soo much? I am also not sure whether you are a Jew, or a Christian, or whether you are really an atheist or perhaps Khatijah? A little bit of each I guess... wakakaka.

    2. In Judaism David was NOT a prophet; maybe in Islam he was though I wonder why when the Jews do not see him as a prophet but only a king. But David was a most evil man, probably the MOST evil man in the Old Testament, who was responsible for decimating Saul's entire family and most of the Benjaminites a la genocide.

      He was a very lustful man, having his way with many women, including Saul's daughter (Michal, admittedly married to him ) and Ahinoam (Saul's wife and get this, mother to Michal, thus his mother-in-law - the monarchical source in the Old Testament supporting David put Ahinoam as a different woman but many modern biblical scholars are more inclined to the republican source in the OT, insisting she was indeed Saul's wife).

      See 2 Samuel 12:8 which says: God tells David through the prophet Nathan, "I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms." Do you believe god would say that, bearing in mind the OT was written by supporters of David? Again, those priesthood caste dropped gods name to legitimise David's evil lustful deeds.

      David was also the lover of Saul's son, Jonathan. David would f* anyone to get to the throne. His most infamous sin was to f* yet another wife of someone, Bathsheba, while the woman's husband, Uriah, was away fighting battles ironically for his king, the evil David who bonked his wife back home.

      Eventually David had Uriah killed by ordering Joab, the commander of his army, to sent Uriah into the thickest part of battle so the poor cuckolded man would be killed. The sickening evil of David was having Uriah himself delivered the "letter of execution" to Joab as if f* the poor bloke's wife while Uriah was fighting for him was not enough. David's evil was unbelievable and unforgivable.

      2 Samuel 11:14-17 states: And it came to pass in the morning, that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah.

      And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die.

      And it came to pass, when Joab observed the city, that he assigned Uriah unto a place where he knew that valiant men were.

      And the men of the city went out, and fought with Joab: and there fell some of the people of the servants of David; and Uriah the Hittite died also.

      That's the horrendous extent of David's evil whose so-called fame in the OT was the greatest hoax of all, only enabled by the reality of the authors of the OT being his supporters or fellow Judeans (from the tribe of Judah) - see also my post

      Anyway, according to the Abrahamic religions, a prophet was the one 'chosen' by his god to be in dialogue/communication with the divinity. Prophet Muhammad pbuh was the last prophet in Islam, yet today many in PAS have claimed to convey the message or instructions of Allah swt, thus making themselves "prophets" - see my/this article wakakaka

    3. Thanks KT for your clarification.

      But still I have to disagree with you. My reason is, if David is that bad, why did God give him The Psalms? Just like as the Torah is to Prophet Moses, as the Gospel is to Prophet Jesus, and as the Quran is to Prophet Muhammad.

      There are four important characteristics of a good muslim: (1) Sidiq; (2) Amanah; (3) Tabligh; and (4) Fatanah. Tabligh means menyampaikan i.e. to convey t. Thus, it is the duty of each and every muslim to convey the message of God. Every muslim is aware that Muhammad is the last of all the prophets. One does not have to be a priest, or a cleric, or Hadi or Harun Din to convey Allah’s message. Even, the man on the street can do just that.

    4. The psalms were not given to David by his god. As I mentioned, the achievements and goodness of David have been a total hoax - he was evil, full stop. His descendants and supporters wrote him up as god's beloved. Would and could god have love such an evil man, who took to bonking his general's wife, and then sent his general to be killed? And that's only 1 example of his evilness.

      Psalms have been a collection of hymns (praises to god) written over several hundreds of years by many people, eg. Moses, Solomon, the sons of Korah (Korah was the great grandson of Levi through Levi's son Kohath), the sons of Asaph (Asaph was also a Levi and basically David's "musical director"; he wrote many psalms and his work was continued by his descendants), and Ethan the Ezrahite, David might have written a few but there have been so many lies about his achievements that modern scholars are quite wary of his authorship - for example, his so-called killing of Goliath has been dismissed by some biblical scholars.

      Psalm 104 in fact has been traced by scholars to Pharaoh Akhenaten, probably the world's first monotheist. The Pharaoh was Moses' contemporary so it wasn't far fetched for Moses to have taken/adopted Akhenaten's "Great Hymn to the Aten" which became Psalm 104 (Aten was the sole god of the heretic pharaoh - Akhenaten was deemed as heretic because he insisted on one god in a land of many hundreds of gods).

      As I wrote in my post the OT was all about David and why he as the 8th son of Jesse could become King of the Israelites.

      Without David there would probably have been no OT. Maybe this also proves the proverb that "the pen is mightier than the sword", which has been proven over more than 2000 years by the Jews, especially his descendants and supporters who authored the OT and glorified his non-achievements by fabrications and covered up (almost did) his many acts of evil.

    5. I am sorry again KT... I can't agree with you.

      This is what the Quran says: Re from Surah Al Isra' Verse 55 - "And your Lord is most knowing of whoever is in the heavens and the earth. And We have made some of the prophets exceed others [in various ways], and to David We gave the book [of Psalms]."

    6. it's okay bro hasan. that's the difference between (your) faith and (my belief in) scholarship. scholarship can never convince those of faith and vice versa

    7. I’d subscribe to that statement of yours. Indeed, we understand each other’s approach and reasoning. Warmest regards. Cheers…

    8. but i doubt u r trying to convince. u r wakakaing the believer most of the time.

    9. aiyah my dear HY, I love wakakaka-ing lah, wakakaka

  4. Only 2 persons arguing. Ck prophecy finally comes true? hahahaha. Kaytee sudah die cock stand

  5. KT, if as you insists, the OT was written by the supporters of David and the motive is to glorify and justify all the evils that David did, then it would only be expected for these writers to leave out describing the heinous crimes of David from their writings, unless what we now view as crimes were not so during David's time. Let's face it, will KT want to write bad things about Jib Kor and Kak Ros in this blog? More likely Loose74 will take on such a role in this blog. So, those bad things/stories about David could not have been written by David's supporters. More likely to be written by his haters. Just as it is impossible for KT to blog negatively about Jib Kor/Kak Ros being(perceived) as a supporter as opposed to Loose74 seemingly the hater of them. The mere fact that KT knows about the stories of David's dark secrets is testimony that these stories were not written by David's supporters, but rather by his haters or someone neutral, calling a spade a spade.

    1. Teo, you have a point there - it's true not all episodes were covered by only Davidic supporters. Some northerners (from the northern kingdom of Israel when it fell to the Assyrians) escaped south to Judah together with their versions of Israelite history. Then there were other priesthood groups which were not favoured by David's side who had their own recordings, but they were the minority. But biblical scholars show that there were massive redaction, insertions of coverups and editing - one example was the murder of Saul where the two coverups stories had Saul killing himself after severe wounds in battle (one of the versions had an Amalekite killing Saul at the latter's request, and the Amalekite reporting to David with Saul's crown after travelling great distances when he could have given the crown to the Saul's which was nearer, and to only have himself killed by David when he was coincidentally the only so-called witness to Saul's request for mercy killing,

      The murder of Saul and his entire family was so evil that even the Israelites had problems accepting David's crime of such humongous proportions,

      The other example was the fabricated story of the Battle of Gibeah where the Benjaminites were shown as an evil tribe who were massacred by the other Israelites for their so-called crime.

      This was what biblical scholars said of the Battle of Gibeah that: ... the biblical text describing the battle and the events surrounding it is considerably late in date, originating close to the time of the Deuteronomist's compilation of Judges from its source material, and clearly has several exaggerations of both numbers and of modes of warfare. Additionally, the inhospitality which triggered the battle is reminiscent of the Torah's account of Sodom and Gomorrah. Many Biblical scholars concluded that the account was a piece of political spin, which had been intended to disguise atrocities carried out by the tribe of Judah against Benjamin, probably in the time of King David as an act of revenge or spite by David against the associates of King Saul, by casting them further back in time, and adding a more justifiable motive.

      In other words, the massacre of the Benjaminites (Saul's tribe) was done during David's time but was pre-dated some 300 years to the era before the monarchy, to absolve David's genocidal sin and to show the tribe of Benjamin (Saul's tribe) was damn evil.

      But if the tribe of Benjamin was so evil, would the Israelites have chosen a Benjaminite, namely Saul, to be their first ever king?

      Incidentally, the Sodom and Gomorrah story, with regards to Lot and his two daughters, was another badmouthing nastiness by he Israelites (Judeans) where they fabricated acts of incest by their Hebrew cousins from Lot's line into Moabites and Ammonites bastards.

      The OT is full of such fabrications in favour of David, Judah and the tribe of Judah, thanks to the sources who were not pro David though they were in the minority. Their accounts as in the case of Saul's murder by David were so troubling that even the poor David redactors could not erase them but instead edit them as best as they could.

    2. 1st line of my last paragraph above would read better as follows:

      The OT is full of such fabrications in favour of David, Judah and the tribe of Judah, but thanks to the sources who were not pro David though they were in the minority we have come to know about these fabricated spins

    3. Dear KT,
      We are only discussing on the accounts of the person called David, as written in the Bible(officially accepted by scholars of the scriptures). Not those minority views which were eliminated by these learned scholars, thus not forming a chapter of the Bible. For example, the Gospel of Barnabas was rejected from biblical selection due to its conflicting accounts as opposed to the other 4 Gospels. Only those accounts which were also reported(seconded) by other writers were admitted into the collections which we now called the Bible. For example, if 10 guys reported that Mount Kinabalu suffered an earth quake and 1 guy reported that angry spirits of Mount Kinabalu were punishing those who stripped naked at the mount, then we need to go along with the majority account and disregard the minority version of the account.
      When we look at the records of the life and time of David as per the accepted version in the Bible,(disregarding other non-biblical versions) we should note that the perceived evil deeds recorded of David could not have been written by his supporters and the good deeds of David in the Bible could not have been written by his haters. This narrows down to only one possibility that is the writer was neither for nor against David. He was just telling the truth of what actually happened. If this guy was telling the truth, then could it be that those rejected guys(minority) were telling unverified lies due to their hatred, jealousy or whatever personal motives they may have? Could those be the reasons why their version did not make it into the Bible? Should we put our thrust in the majority or in the minority? Then again, the majority may not always be right since history is written by the winners. By the way who can say for sure that those learned scholars and researchers has no personal bias or motivation while writing their research papers? For example BN sponsored research VS PR sponsored research on the subject of say Hang Li Poh?

    4. Teo, have you heard of the Council of Nicea? That's how your bible (NT) was decided, in reality by royal political requirements rather than spiritual inspirations.

      Here's an example of priestly thoughts that influenced the development of the Christian Church in its earliest days:

      Irenaeus, the leader of a church in France in about the year 170, declared that "The heretics boast that they have many more gospels than there really are. But really they don't have any gospels that aren't full of blasphemy. There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic. These, besides, are written by Jesus' true followers."

      Yeah, four of this and four of that, and the four gospels were thus officially defined. Have you heard of the Gospels of not only Thomas (so they badmouthed him as Doubting Thomas), Mary (Magdalene, not the mum) and Judas Iscariot? Read them to know who was your Jesus' shining light among his disciples.

      As for the OT, don't forget the Tribe of Judah was the only tribe left standing (Benjaminites were no more than a minority kept under Judean control) during their Babylonian bondage which was when the OT was first written into a cohesive form. When Cyrus of Persia freed them from Babylonian bondage, they out of gratitude wrote him it as their (only infidel) messiah and even had his coming pre-dated about 200 years as a prophecy by the prophet Isaiah, wakakaka.

      Do you imagine the Judeans (Tribe of Judah) would write any thing bad about David? The only reason why we come into contact with parts of the OT that spoke of (or allude to) David's evil (after much redaction by the Judean authors to mitigate his evil sins) was that some of David's crime was so horrendous and deep set in the minds of the Judeans that even they couldn't erase that, but instead attempt to mitigate it by dropping God's name every now and then, changing the events chronology (eg. David's part in the murder of Saul, Battle of Gibeah, etc) or implausible geographical events (eg. Witch of Endor) and various other redactions/amendments/insertions. Additionally there were other sources of records that couldn't be dismissed so easily - I suppose some, tho' not all of those Judean authors were not unlike today's biblical scholars who respect truth.

      The modern biblical scholars are mostly Christians and Jews but that's who they are, namely, modern scholars who look for the truth rather than bury their heads in the sand.

      I don't believe their truthful academic pursuits diminish their respective faith. After all, the monotheistic origin of your Judeo-Christian God came from Egypt, Akhenaten's Aten! Does it matter whether God is called Aten, Yahweh or Jesus, etc? As the Hindu God Lord Krishna said: "Whichever god you pray to,it is I who will answer!"

    5. by the way, Teo, the analogy to Hang Li Po is not a good one. We need to talk about documentary or/and archaeological evidence in scholarship. In Ming records there is no evidence of a Hang Li Po being sent to Malacca as a bride for the Sultan. It doesn't mean it was not a true event but without documentary evidence, it's hard to confirm or deny.

      Incidentally, I am not aware of any BN sponsored research or PR sponsored research on the subject of Hang Li Poh. I like to know more, but why would PR institute such a research? What's the purpose? How will it serve the rakyat of Malaysia?

    6. Okay lah... Let’s take that the research and findings of Biblical scholars about David are true. And granted, David is indeed an evil person.

      Then, let’s take the following verses from the Quran:

      Surah Sad Verse 24: “And David became certain that We had tried him, and he asked forgiveness of his Lord and fell down bowing [in prostration] and turned in repentance [to Allah]”.

      Surah Sad Verse 25: “So We forgave him that; and indeed, for him is nearness to Us and a good place of return.”

      Surah Sad Verse 26: “[We said], "O David, indeed We have made you a successor upon the earth, so judge between the people in truth and do not follow [your own] desire, as it will lead you astray from the way of Allah."

      Didn’t David repent? Did not Allah forgive David? If Allah could and had forgave David, why can’t us then?

  6. During King David's time, do they also have fabricators that write for BOTH sides too what some of our bloggers here are doing....they shift their alliance according to 'circumstances' seemingly like overnight, doing a 180 degree. But I personally don't think these ancient people can be as versatile as our new species in the 21st century.....our new type can even play 3 sides or more ! If they look into the mirror, one wonders who do they see ? Or maybe these types don't believe in looking into mirrors....they might just keel over with the ugly truth.

    1. modern research on biblical studies are conducted by qualified scholars, both Christians and Jews, not politically biased nobodies, wakakaka

    2. KT... saya tumpang wakakaka

    3. wel-wakakaka-come, wakakaka

  7. Meanwhile........

    1. that's what happened in Perak and Selangor


    Hahahahaha.....reminds me of this joke.....

  9. Atheists murdering 1/6 of entire cambodia population

    fuck you kaytee

    1. think of the many more millions murdered by judeans even up to this day, christians (think south america for a start) wakakaka, muslim and hindus. the fijians are looking for a methodist like you, wakakaka again